50 More On-Street Car-Share Spaces Proposed — Support One Near You

About 50 on-street car-share parking spaces could be approved at an SFMTA engineering hearing tomorrow. That’s your chance to write in, or show up at City Hall, to support a smart move by the SFMTA: placing car-share vehicles in convenient locations citywide, and putting everyone within easy reach of this alternative to car ownership.

Reserving curbside parking spaces for exclusive use by car-share puts shared vehicles closer to more residents, making the service more convenient. Until now, car-share organizations have generally only been able to procure reserved spaces in off-street parking lots or garages, or at paved-over sites like gas stations that are often prime sites for redevelopment.

The SFMTA’s car-sharing policy document [PDF] cites a 2010 nationwide study which found that every car-share vehicle replaces as many as 13 private automobiles. Some auto owners who don’t drive often give up the hassle of car ownership (or second car ownership) after joining car-share, while other residents may choose to not buy a car in the first place because car-sharing grants them access to a car.

Nonetheless, there are reports that some neighbors of proposed car-share spots don’t buy the stats, and oppose the reserved spots because they see “their” parking being removed. One merchant at my street corner has a sign posted in her window telling people to oppose two proposed spots nearby, and didn’t seem swayed by my arguments that it would make more parking available. (As a car-share user myself, I know that it stops me from considering buying a car, and thus occupying a parking space.)

Below is the list of proposed locations for on-street car-share, taken from the hearing agenda [PDF]. Comments can be emailed to sustainable.streets@sfmta.com, or you can speak at the hearing on Friday at 10 a.m. in City Hall, Room 416.

This post is made possible by a grant from GJEL Accident Attorneys, a Bay Area law firm committed to representing pedestrians and cyclists. The content is Streetsblog's own, and GJEL neither endorses nor exercises any editorial control.

Hi folks, Please check out the list of 50 first parking spots and support the one closest to your home or workplace, or just click the link above and write in support more generally. Car share is really important to even avowed car owners, because it reduces multiple car households, frees up parking, and reduces the number of short, casual car trips by triggering people to make a choice of biking, transit, or walking for the brief errands.

94103er

Can anyone comment re whether this might open the city up for Car2Go? I think the one-way rental of cars is a real game-changer, even if I’m generally not a fan of cars.

In the meantime, It’s a shame that Car2Go doesn’t think it worth diving into other nearby markets like Palo Alto, Oakland, etc. It could really help a lot of people decide to get rid of cars or hold off on buying a second one. My Seattle relatives are a testament to the latter and hopefully I can convince them someday that biking is safe, too.

This looks like unfair competition among other things. Way to go to convince people to vote to increase their vehicle license fees and give the MTA more money. Good luck with that.

voltairesmistress

Sebra, proponents of cheap driving will find any excuse to explain away the opposition of most drivers to pay their fair share. VLF’s inevitable failure is just another excuse for you to make a specious argument that it’s failure is a rational response to parking policies in SF. The proposed VLF increase is polling at 25% but needs 67% to pass. It is an exercise in futility to attempt to get drivers to pay by choice for the true cost of their car use. Ending the externalized cost of car use has to be imposed by law by representatives weighing public benefit versus individuals’ costs. Allowing policy decisions to be left up to clueless drivers used to pushing their costs onto the general public is no way to further good but painful public policy.

coolbabybookworm

The VLF needs 50.1% to pass, the GO bonds needs 67%

94103er

Well shoot, that’s just silly and boy does that all smell like politics. It takes little more than intuition to tell me that Car2Go would encourage more use of public transit and maybe even biking, not less. I know that in Seattle people grab a Car2Go car in the morning when they’re in a hurry to get to work and take public transit home. Then the cars get used again for public transit-then-car evenings out. The rental costs are a strong incentive for these one-way trips.

These are Smart cars, right, so you can fit more of them into tiny parking spaces. I think that’s increasing efficiency, not a blanket assessment that it’s more cars on the road like Reiskin is saying.

Obviously bike share is better and cheaper but Car2Go is a good option for now for those who can’t dock near a destination or get to a dock from home.

Scoot Networks (one-way electric scooters) seems to fill this niche for now, at least. But you can’t load a bike into it if you want a free ride back home.

murphstahoe

Unfair competition between what?

sebra leaves

Since when is painful public policy good? And who decides what is good?

gneiss

I would like to see you argue that the ban on smoking in MUNI vehicles is not good public policy, despite the fact that it is inherently painful to the 18% of people who smoke in California.

murphstahoe

Q: “And who decides what is good?”
A: “The All Powerful Bike Lobby. Kneel before Zod!”

voltairesmistress

Really? I thought all new fees need a 2/3 majority.

ABE

This is a TERRIBLE idea and yet one more assault on the long term residents of San Francisco. Another corporate giveaway by Ed Lee. Giving away Public parking in overcrowded residential neighborhoods. Exempting carshare spaces from Street cleaning violations. This plan is fine for major boulevards and commercial areas. But NOT for residential areas.